On 26 May 2020, at 18:24, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 05/21/2020 05:54 PM, John McCall wrote:
On 21 May 2020, at 14:59, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose a few changes to the LLVM release process.
The
current process is documented here:
https://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html
There are two parts to this proposal. The first is a list of
clarifications,
which are things we are currently doing that aren't documented. The
second
is a list of changes which would actually modify how releases are
currently
managed.
*** Proposed Clarifications ***
** Release manager is allowed to commit changes to the release
branch without
code owner approval. However, the release manager is encouraged
to consult
with code owners or patch reviewers for non-trivial changes.
It's not practical to get code owner approval every time. Either
because there
is no code owner or because the number of backports is too high
(e.g. pre-rc1 / pre-rc2).
This proposed clarification matches how releases are currently
managed.
If this is how things are currently managed, it’s hard to argue
against it,
but I do think that — independently — we should make a stronger
effort to
ensure that we have active code owners covering the entire codebase.
My sense is that the ownership problem is deepest in two specific
parts
of the project: compiler-rt and LLVM itself. Do you agree?
There are usually less backports for compiler-rt, so that hasn't been
an issue for me, but I do agree that LLVM itself could use more code
owners.
Okay, thanks.
John.
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
